Like many people, I stumbled across the site in a web search. After reading about a hundred policy pages just to be sure I really was allowed to change things and that I was doing it right, I made an edit. And from there I was hooked: I was in my last year of college writing material that was otherwise going to get thrown away; why not do something useful with it? I became involved behind the scenes after someone I considered a mentor was asking people to join the OTRS email response team; I thought it would be a small thing to do in my spare time but instead it opened my eyes to the wide variety of issues Wikimedia faces
I'm most proud of Rebecca Helferich Clarke, which is a Featured Article; at the time of writing it was the most complete single article on her anywhere. This recording of a Josquin motet, transcribed for bassoon quartet and performed by me, is not the most musically significant, but I am proud of it.
(Oh, and while no individual edit on the en.wp arbitration committee or message sent via OTRS was particularly noteworthy, I am proud of doing it and not going crazy.)
I see the board as working on a big-picture level, creating a framework for decentralized community effort, and thinking both on the short term and the very, very long term. The board is a very small body; it can't micromanage and it can't try to take on too much directly itself or it loses effectiveness and loses sight of the big picture.
The board has the job and the privilege of not focusing on the day-to-day details, and being able to step back and see how they fit into a more long-term, consistent picture.
The way that specifically comes into play is by defining the mission and vision of the organization, setting goals in line with these, and maintenance of the technical and organizational infrastructure; the board should be trusted as stewards of the ideas and resources behind the foundation.
Well, as an incumbent I suppose by definition I would not be bringing anything that it currently lacks! I'll attempt to answer in the spirit the question was asking and say what I think I bring to the current composition.
One thing, now, is institutional memory: I was appointed to the board after the expansion in late 2006, and was then in an elected seat when I ran in 2007. With Florence having departed for Wikimedia France I'm now the longest-serving member of the board other than Jimbo, and my knowledge of the past has been useful: even when things have been well-documented being able to recall when they are relevant and what the outcomes were is valuable.
Another is an understanding of the ideals and principles of the project and a connection to others in the free culture and free software communities. I pay close attention to legal and social issues that affect us, and I think I am particularly aware of copyright, patent, and trademark issues, legal scholarship, and public policy developments. I am connected with institutions and nonprofits in the DC area, participating in strategic meetings, policy discussions, and social events. I also try to attend the Wikimeetups and chapter meetings in the northeast USA (and a few near SF).
Finally, I may possibly be the most willing to disagree—not in the sense of being argumentative, but rather most inclined to try to figure out what's wrong with a proposal and point out its flaws. I'm skilled at noticing implications of decisions to varied communities and across long time horizons, and am able to disagree effectively even with people I very much like and respect, and work toward solutions.
Getting valuable results from the strategic plan is a big goal: defining our goals for the next several years is an important goal in itself, and the process of doing it—connecting with people from all parts of the Wikimedia community and effectively using what they have to say—will also lead to growth. I'd also like to see us have better formal relationships in place with other organizations working on common goals. I think it is a mistake for WMF to try to take on too much outside its current scope too fast; better to partner with those who already have expertise where we need it and share resources and knowledge.
One thing I think is important is hearing from the people we don't hear from much, and reaching out to the people who should be part of our community but aren't. The Academies are a good example of this, though ultimately they need to be more decentralized. We are pretty good at capturing the ideas and knowledge of a fairly limited demographic, and sharing it back to them; how do we get people from outside of it to join us? It's a perennial issue because it's not an easy one.
Another is organizational structure and communications channels: relationships with chapters, decentralizing, figuring out how to be most effective here.
One thing we aren't doing is making dumps of the project databases and media regularly available; this is probably the question I get asked most often and am least able to answer. (This is just starting to be addressed in recent months, but it was long overdue.) More contact with people in the community who aren't the ones making themselves heard on the mailing lists, who have things to contribute but don't have the time or experience to wade through difficult communications channels.
It's a little bit hard to figure out what to answer here -- there are many things we are doing that people don't realize we are doing, some of which fill long-unmet needs. In general, though, we should move toward more proactive than reactive -- working more on moving forward rather than reacting to crises. I think we have made large steps here in the past several years but need to work on it further.
It's also hard to identify things we are doing that we shouldn't be; I hope that I have, along with the rest of the board, been able to change the most glaring of these.
I think there may not be much the Board can do on this, beyond setting some core policies and philosophies; attempts to impose structures from above that the community does not accept would only meet with failure. Part of this may be through encouraging things that bring people together to get into heavy discussions, better communicating the common culture and the project mission and ideals, and letting the communities themselves figure out what governance structures are best.
I do think there are huge structural problems with governance on en.wikipedia: difficulties in defining consensus and when it has been achieved, characteristics of the way decisions are made that encourage factionalism and prevent consensus, or encourage pluralities rather than consensus. I simply don't think that imposing structure from a board level is an effective way to resolve it; improving technical features can both lessen and contribute to the problems. (I have opinions on it from a community level, but I would not try to impose them from the board.)
Hm, in short I think I'm saying that it's a hard problem, which is not a very satisfying answer but an honest one.
We should encourage partnerships with groups that will further our mission while respecting the terms we set. For example, groups distributing offline copies of projects can do great work; we would like to reach people who do not have regular internet access but cannot without help.
At the very least groups who work with us need to respect the licensing terms, and not attempt to lock up the content. They must respect our decision not to include advertising on the projects, and not to restrict editing. They must also in general be "good citizens": companies, organizations, and individuals who are in general known for fair, responsible practices, and not for harmful actions. This doesn't and can't mean that we agree on everything, but should mean that working with them doesn't harm us and our goals.
(As an aside, I have been very happy talking with Sue and Kul about their strategies for business development; Kul in particular is committed to searching for opportunities that are in line with this, rather than simply accepting any deal that will bring in money. I know that we have refused offers that required things of us we were not willing to do.)
I think that we need to have a clear vision of the future, to have a long-term set of goals of achieve and spending plans that address those goals. As the amount of money we take in gets larger it gets more important to have that sense.
My view of the current financial plan is that it reflect an attempt to meet those goals as currently defined. It is also a large increase in spending. Part of that involves grants that were to a particular purpose: the usability initiative grant, for example. In previous years I think we have not been spending enough: delaying purchases. We have had to grow into our capability to raise money. It's not enough simply to have the money come in; in order to use it there must be a staff that can manage it and oversee the spending, and be sure that it gets results.
I think we should have a realistic look about where our streams of income are coming from, and how they are likely to change in the future, and search for new ones we are not taking advantage of. I am thrilled with the results of the fundraisers and grants, and think we should take advantage of those opportunities it allows. Money spent now has more returns year after year: more hardware, improvements to the software, outreach efforts -- the sooner we do them the more long-term impact it can have.
I also think it's not a fatal tragedy if we can't continue to grow at the rate we have over the past few years, or even if income falls. The core operation does not require much: if the lights are on and the servers running, we can survive, but additional money allows for more growth and more effective work.
I think the board should give just enough support to help things along or assure people that they are going in the right direction. The board should be a catalyst, but the initiative for a chapter has to come from the people involved; it may be possible to jump-start one but it won't be possible to sustain one without the desire of the people involved to organize and run it.
But eventually I see most of the local actions—academies, outreach projects, partnerships with local groups—coming from the chapters. Though I don't necessarily mean chapters as the formal incorporated entity: for example, Brazil, which is more of a loose association, has a model that works for them, and I see other local groups as not needing the same level of formal structure as, say, Wikimedia Germany. As more subnational chapters arise, those too may be less formal. The central foundation can't be the point of contact for everything we as a community would want to do, especially as we reach more people; the local groups are the natural place for that.
The board is there to keep everyone on the same page, and to coordinate common efforts, as the chapters' agreements commit them to advancing the goals of the Foundation.
I should first clarify that I don't think of the Advisory Board as a unit, not like the Board of Trustees is—it has been most helpful to consult them individually, in one-on-one conversations.
I think it is important to have for many reasons. First of all, there are many people with specific expertise that is useful to us, who can't make the sort of commitment that a regular board seat would require but who would like to offer us their help and guidance. Naming them as members gives them recognition for that—we think these people are valuable to us and they are part of our organization. The role strengthens their ties to us, also; it's one thing to be asked for advice from people you feel generally friendly toward and other to be asked for advice from
The specific tasks that I tend to ask are advice: we're thinking about doing X, we need some advice from people who have been there, what do you think about this? My closest contact is probably Mako Hill, whose knowledge of the free software world and massively collaborative projects. Others have been exceptionally helpful in staff search, fundraising, outreach, sharing data and experiences, financial and legal assistance.
There is a wide range of expertise on the advisory board, but we are particularly looking for people with more experience doing outreach and education outside the United States, and people with experience with 501(c)(3) nonprofits inside the United States.
Some things I have done include drafting and promoting the licensing policy, for what content we will and will not accept. I was also involved in the GFDL/CC license transition. There were several earlier forms of the agreement, and I made an effective call for more community participation and the community approval process, and more commitments and clarifications from CC and FSF before we would commit. I did early interviews for key staff, and made tough decisions regarding former staff; I was one of the interviewers for the Chief Program Officer position, and serve on the executive committee, which evaluates the performance of the ED and whether goals have been met. I have also been involved in the process of restructuring the office: hiring professional staff, drafting and revising office policies in order to comply with auditors' recommendations, and ensuring that structural protections are put in place to protect against mishandling of resources. I have helped to define goals for the board, restructure the board, and figure out the relationships and agreements with chapters (OK, that one is still in progress...). Finally, I have been a source of information to staff and other board members, particularly those who do not participate in the editing community, have not done so for as long, or do not read the mailing lists.
Some things I hope to do in another term include more ways to officially recognize and make it easier to use open access resources, search for people to fill the outside expertise seats, continue to think about the relationship between chapters and the foundation and how we should go forward as it becomes clearer that the chapters are maturing into several different types of organizations. We should also continue figuring out how to enable higher-quality content and removal of harmful content without closing participation —flagged revisions is one example, and increasing usability may be another; there are surely other structural and technical changes that are possible. Finally, I hope to be a better and more effective communicator for Wikimedia; one of the things I enjoy most about being an ambassador for Wikimedia is sharing what I know about it with others and I hope to do more of that over the next few years.